I'm claiming, without a hint of irony or shame, that the Republicans benefit much more from voter fraud and indirect disenfranchisement than the Democrats do. You got a problem with that?

Wrong is wrong. And so is hypocrisy. It makes me fucking sick.

Wrong is wrong, unless it is breaking the law in which case it is right because following the law is wrong in your view.

That is your reasoning. Indirect disenfranchisement, aka LIFE and some people through their own choices not going to the polls means that all of us should just ignore fraud.

THAT IS YOUR ACTUAL REASONING?!?

That is terrifying reasoning. It is exactly the leftist reasoning that leads to mass murder. It is sociopathic reasoning.

Some people, through indirect disenfranchisement, don't make enough money or have enough clothes. It's okay to commit fraud to correct this point. It is fine to steal, rob or murder because you are correcting the "REAL" wrong out there.

I believe no only do I have a problem with that, but most SANE people have a problem with that. Your definition of hypocrisy is whatever happens to make you feel upset or wronged and the fact that the universal parents out there doesn't take steps to fix it and bring utopia. It is immature, insane and dangerous reasoning.

Just to make it clear for everyone, you feel it completely justifiable for non-citizens to have committed fraud to vote.

They can be, sure. But I think we also have a greater chance to make a difference in local elections than federal.

When you're dealing with thousands of votes as compared to millions, each vote counts that much more.

And really, I think if any lasting changes are to be made to the way things are done federally, it's got to start locally and work its way up.

While I agree with this in principle and I also agree that most of what the Federal government currently does should be pushed down to lower levels (state at least, county or city in many cases)...there's a new problem emerging. All the states and localities are becoming more beholden and dependent on the Feds for money. Some are falling all over themselves to get or keep Federal funding for this or that or the other. Whether it is "stimulus", school, highway or "Homeland Security" money. In this way the "golden rule" applies...he who has the gold (or green pieces of scrap paper) makes the rules.

Wrong is wrong, unless it is breaking the law in which case it is right because following the law is wrong in your view.

That is your reasoning. Indirect disenfranchisement, aka LIFE and some people through their own choices not going to the polls means that all of us should just ignore fraud.

THAT IS YOUR ACTUAL REASONING?!?

That is terrifying reasoning. It is exactly the leftist reasoning that leads to mass murder. It is sociopathic reasoning.

Some people, through indirect disenfranchisement, don't make enough money or have enough clothes. It's okay to commit fraud to correct this point. It is fine to steal, rob or murder because you are correcting the "REAL" wrong out there.

I believe no only do I have a problem with that, but most SANE people have a problem with that. Your definition of hypocrisy is whatever happens to make you feel upset or wronged and the fact that the universal parents out there doesn't take steps to fix it and bring utopia. It is immature, insane and dangerous reasoning.

Just to make it clear for everyone, you feel it completely justifiable for non-citizens to have committed fraud to vote.

Bin-go.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Dude, you've really got a screw loose. Where the FUCK did I say we should ignore fraud?

It's right there dude. I'm sorry if you can't realize how twisted your reasoning is but it is plain as day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

I'll trade you the nonresidents and dead people who vote fraudulently, for the people who are discouraged from voting because they're poor, and for the voting processes that trick people into voting for the wrong candidate, and for the voting machines that have non-transparent code and nonlinear result tallies, any day, any time.

You call it a fair trade. Indirect disinfranchisement is a trade for fraud. The evil Republicans, who are responsible for themselves and also for everything Democrats do, allowed a "confusing" butterfly ballot because the Democratic canvassing board in a Democratic majority district weren't stopped from undertaking their normal but claimed confusing actions by Republicans. This completely justifies aka is a trade for illegal immigrants voting as citizens.

You said it is trade, plain and clear.

You are welcome at any point to say it should be addressed. You've only had about five posts now without saying that of course.

It's right there dude. I'm sorry if you can't realize how twisted your reasoning is but it is plain as day.

You are welcome at any point to say it should be addressed. You've only had about five posts now without saying that of course.

I'll be waiting.

Excellent use of selective ignorance, profiling, and denial of the facts. You do Karl Rove proud.

This is what I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

If ID applications are free, and applications are taken and fulfilled outside of working hours, and there is no need for transportation to be paid by the applicant, then I would accept a voter ID system. Oh, and no physical address required, obviously.

There are ways to reduce fraud without conveniently disenfranchising legitimate voters that Republicans are more than happy to have disenfranchised. Like having all electronic voting fully documented and accountable, machines unhackable and programming code fully open. Or does that kind of breaking the law and fraud not count?

Excellent use of selective ignorance, profiling, and denial of the facts. You do Karl Rove proud.

This is what I said:

There are ways to reduce fraud without conveniently disenfranchising legitimate voters that Republicans are more than happy to have disenfranchised. Like having all electronic voting fully documented and accountable, machines unhackable and programming code fully open. Or does that kind of breaking the law and fraud not count?

You've still not said that non-citizen's voting shouldn't be allowed. You've rationalized a massive number of mitigating factors to allow the fraud to continue but you've not said it is wrong and that it shouldn't be allowed. Calling names and attempting to poison the well doesn't change that point.

Also think about your wonderfully conflicting platitudes there. How is something completely open yet unhackable? What electronic device in all of creation has never had a successful hack against it?

As for that kind of breaking the law and fraud not counting, it doesn't count because all your demands are not currently against the law. They are demands you have crafted out of your imagination to use to rationalize non-citizens voting. They are a TRADE. We must all tolerate our own votes being disenfranchised because tonton, overlord of the world has declared a set of imaginary demands within his head to be ILLEGAL when the states themselves have not done this.

Right. So by saying explicitly that we should have voter ID if we can do it in a way that doesn't disenfranchise any legitimate voters, I'm saying we should tolerate fraud?

You should change your handle to trobonman because you sure know how to stretch your instrument.

Oh, and we should definitely eliminate non-citizen and deceased voting. Just as soon as we agree on a way to do it without disenfranchising legitimate voters. Have I made myself clear enough this time?

Right. So by saying explicitly that we should have voter ID if we can do it in a way that doesn't disenfranchise any legitimate voters, I'm saying we should tolerate fraud?

You list as examples of disenfranchisement, actions not related to actual laws and hold third parties responsible for the actions of first parties while the first parties aren't responsible for themselves.

So a lawful butterfly ballot, fully vetted and designed by the Democrats within the county in which it was used, that is an example of DISENFRANCHISEMENT.

Quote:

You should change your handle to trobonman because you sure know how to stretch your instrument.

It must be nice to call names while ignoring points like all your demands that aren't actual laws and in many ways aren't actually attainable.

Quote:

Oh, and we should definitely eliminate non-citizen and deceased voting. Just as soon as we agree on a way to do it without disenfranchising legitimate voters. Have I made myself clear enough this time?

Not really since you've ignored pretty much every point brought up by multiple people while calling a bunch of names. The newspaper article simply cross-referenced jury excuses for citizenship status with voter registration. In this case the parties basically self-confessed to their crime. Would you endorse database cross-referencing with provisional ballot challenges as a means of reducing non-citizen voting? I'm asking because of the websites that defined indirect disinfranchisement would not endorse it declaring provisional ballots to a form of disenfranchisement.

Saying you'll agree to enforce the law without an enforcement mechanism isn't supporting the law.

You list as examples of disenfranchisement, actions not related to actual laws and hold third parties responsible for the actions of first parties while the first parties aren't responsible for themselves.

So a lawful butterfly ballot, fully vetted and designed by the Democrats within the county in which it was used, that is an example of DISENFRANCHISEMENT.

It must be nice to call names while ignoring points like all your demands that aren't actual laws and in many ways aren't actually attainable.

Not really since you've ignored pretty much every point brought up by multiple people while calling a bunch of names. The newspaper article simply cross-referenced jury excuses for citizenship status with voter registration. In this case the parties basically self-confessed to their crime. Would you endorse database cross-referencing with provisional ballot challenges as a means of reducing non-citizen voting? I'm asking because of the websites that defined indirect disinfranchisement would not endorse it declaring provisional ballots to a form of disenfranchisement.

Saying you'll agree to enforce the law without an enforcement mechanism isn't supporting the law.

When the enforcemt mechanism is unlawful, you have no point. And this is what the courts are saying, if you haven't noticed.

Let me give you examples of ways we can reduce fraud without disenfranchising anyone. I would support a temporary database of biometric ID (fingerprint or iris scan, for example) to eliminate double voters. The data would be collected and compared for duplicates only during the vote and fingerprints wouldn't be used for any other purpose, and the database would be deleted after the polls close or after the vote is confirmed. Technology has finally reached a point where we can do that.

Now it's your turn to think of an equally reasonable idea that doesn't disenfranchise anyone.

Of course, Republican's aren't interested in thinking of such a solution, because they WANT to disenfranchise people.

I think every voter should be furnished a sedan chair to get to polls. Otherwise they may be disenfranchised.

This is plain bullshit on the republicans part to start to invoke people to have a voters ID.Why for immigration purposes to see who is illegal or not.What the hell country are we living in now!Where is the freedom we fought for all our lives out the window!

Let me give you examples of ways we can reduce fraud without disenfranchising anyone. I would support a temporary database of biometric ID (fingerprint or iris scan, for example) to eliminate double voters. The data would be collected and compared for duplicates only during the vote and fingerprints wouldn't be used for any other purpose, and the database would be deleted after the polls close or after the vote is confirmed.

Trusting my country with my biometric and fingerprint data to be deleted after one use and never used again feels...well...naive.

Why not go low tech? To prevent double-voting you could use finger inking or hand-stamping. Sure some can wash it off...but this would likely reduce double-voting significantly.

That at least fixes one problem in an inexpensive, low-tech, non-privacy invading way.

As far as identifying voter eligibility (i.e., citizenship and jurisdictional residency...that's a different problem.) I'd say that a state issued ID is probably the most efficient route here. Not full proof nor without its problems, but seems like it covers most bases.

Let me give you examples of ways we can reduce fraud without disenfranchising anyone. I would support a temporary database of biometric ID (fingerprint or iris scan, for example) to eliminate double voters. The data would be collected and compared for duplicates only during the vote and fingerprints wouldn't be used for any other purpose, and the database would be deleted after the polls close or after the vote is confirmed. Technology has finally reached a point where we can do that.

Now it's your turn to think of an equally reasonable idea that doesn't disenfranchise anyone.

Of course, Republican's aren't interested in thinking of such a solution, because they WANT to disenfranchise people.

Take off your Blue Team jersey. Republicans (at least, most) want to stop people from voting who legally should not be voting, or who are "persuaded" to vote through handouts. Democrats (most) want as many people to vote as possible--regardless of who they are--because they know that poor, uninformed, illegal voters vote for Democrats. It's not hard to understand.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

When the enforcemt mechanism is unlawful, you have no point. And this is what the courts are saying, if you haven't noticed.

The courts have upheld voter ID. So I have no idea to what you are referring. The only matter dealing with voter ID at this point is Eric "Fast and Furious" Holder using Justice Department to ignore said court rulings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Let me give you examples of ways we can reduce fraud without disenfranchising anyone. I would support a temporary database of biometric ID (fingerprint or iris scan, for example) to eliminate double voters. The data would be collected and compared for duplicates only during the vote and fingerprints wouldn't be used for any other purpose, and the database would be deleted after the polls close or after the vote is confirmed. Technology has finally reached a point where we can do that.

Now it's your turn to think of an equally reasonable idea that doesn't disenfranchise anyone.

Of course, Republican's aren't interested in thinking of such a solution, because they WANT to disenfranchise people.

That idea is in no form reasonable. First the problem being discussed here is double voting, but non-citizen voting. Your solution in no form prevents that. Likewise the example you cited involved supposedly confused voters. Your solution in no form addresses that. One key innovation to help improve voter participation rates is absentee voting. Your solution doesn't even allow for that. As others are already noting how does the government, which you already accuse of running polling stations with closed source, supposedly manipulated polling stations somehow make sure this data doesn't get stolen or avoid being deleted when grandma and grandpa volunteer pack up the equipment at the end of the day in the local church or Elk's lodge? If the government is inept at technology, you just magnified the problem there ten-fold.

Republicans have already thought of a completely reasonable idea. It is an idea that has won court approval regardless of your claims. It is a workable idea that doesn't need biometric information, temporary databases, nor toss away absentee voting. It is voter ID. In addition this was brought up to you but you...well ignored it as you have several other points in this discussion.

The newspaper article simply cross-referenced jury excuses for citizenship status with voter registration. In this case the parties basically self-confessed to their crime. Would you endorse database cross-referencing with provisional ballot challenges as a means of reducing non-citizen voting? I'm asking because of the websites that defined indirect disinfranchisement would not endorse it declaring provisional ballots to a form of disenfranchisement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Trusting my country with my biometric and fingerprint data to be deleted after one use and never used again feels...well...naive.

Why not go low tech? To prevent double-voting you could use finger inking or hand-stamping. Sure some can wash it off...but this would likely reduce double-voting significantly.

That at least fixes one problem in an inexpensive, low-tech, non-privacy invading way.

As far as identifying voter eligibility (i.e., citizenship and jurisdictional residency...that's a different problem.) I'd say that a state issued ID is probably the most efficient route here. Not full proof nor without its problems, but seems like it covers most bases.

You'd say that but tonton who keeps ignoring the whole quote feature so he can ignore all the information put before him and try the same tired points from a new angle while already ignoring how they've been beat down, doesn't care to address your point. Cross referencing voter rolls with other state databases is another pretty easy solution to eliminate the dead and non-citizens from the rolls. He hasn't addressed it and won't.

This is no different than any other topic involving both sides. Conservatives are more interested in not letting a single case of fraud or abuse exist and will enact policies that cause many law-abiding citizens to fall through the cracks in the process. Liberals prefer that fraud not take place, but refuse to let a single person be disenfranchised in order to fix the problem.

The same attitude goes with welfare, unemployment benefits, et cetera. Liberals don't want people taking advantage of the system but would prefer that someone eligible isn't screwed by draconian policies put in place to stop fraud. Conservatives don't appear to care that some folks slip through the cracks.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

This is no different than any other topic involving both sides. Conservatives are more interested in not letting a single case of fraud or abuse exist and will enact policies that cause many law-abiding citizens to fall through the cracks in the process. Liberals prefer that fraud not take place, but refuse to let a single person be disenfranchised in order to fix the problem.

The same attitude goes with welfare, unemployment benefits, et cetera. Liberals don't want people taking advantage of the system but would prefer that someone eligible isn't screwed by draconian policies put in place to stop fraud. Conservatives don't appear to care that some folks slip through the cracks.

No. You're wrong. What liberals consider falling through the cracks involves decisions and actions taken by the supposed disenfranchisee that go well beyond reasonable actions. That is exactly why courts have ruled in favor of voter ID.

States provide free photo ID. They provide provisional ballots in the event there is some challenge regarding ID or registration information. They have motor voter ID registration and absentee ballots. All these are not enough per you. Someone needs to put them in a car, drive them down there, walk them into the booth and possibly lift their arm to the table.

Democratic voters are the ones who supposedly can't push a metal pin through a piece of paper and thus are disenfranchised. They supposedly can't read the names on the ballot. I suppose those are hard actions when you aren't alive, or aren't actually a citizen but the courts have never ruled against them. When Democratic polling machines and stations are deemed to few or too far apart, it is in Democratic districts run by Democratic officials.

At some point, to vote, you have to actually breath in and out, be conscious and be able to register your own desires or intentions.

Sorry if that is such a stretch for certain Democratic voters. It does not mean fraud should be tolerated.

This is no different than any other topic involving both sides. Conservatives are more interested in not letting a single case of fraud or abuse exist and will enact policies that cause many law-abiding citizens to fall through the cracks in the process. Liberals prefer that fraud not take place, but refuse to let a single person be disenfranchised in order to fix the problem.

The same attitude goes with welfare, unemployment benefits, et cetera. Liberals don't want people taking advantage of the system but would prefer that someone eligible isn't screwed by draconian policies put in place to stop fraud. Conservatives don't appear to care that some folks slip through the cracks.

So noble, BR. So realistic and pragmatic, unlike those ideological extreme conservatives.

Of course, you statements have nothing to do with reality. Democratic fraud is widespread, from dead people voting, to voting multiple times, to illegals voting, to felons voting, to bussing people to the polls and giving them coffee and cigarettes to vote for Democrats. Democrats tend to oppose ANY effort to deprive them of the above groups, because those groups tend to support Democrats. They are perfectly willing to tolerate fraud because the fraud benefits them.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Same principle as rather having ten guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison. Do you disagree with that, too?

Actually that is not an appropriate analogy. Much like how voter ID laws make provisions to prevent being disenfranchsed, so do our justice laws make provisions for a sound defense. Your claim is that some people make such terrible decisions, or are so incapable that they manage muck up even their sound defense.

So by your reasoning, ten guilty men shouldn't even be arrested or go to trial not because not because we want to avoid the one innocent man going to prison, but because the one guilty man showed up high at his court hearing for drug charges and was "disenfranchised" by his own self incrimination.

He was read his rights. He understood the charges. He had a lawyer. He just couldn't stop showing up high. It's the fault of everyone else though.

They have free voter ID. They have absentee ballots. They have provisional ballots. It is the fault of everyone else though when they can't manage to punch a pin through a piece of paper or even read a ballot.

Actually that is not an appropriate analogy. Much like how voter ID laws make provisions to prevent being disenfranchsed, so do our justice laws make provisions for a sound defense. Your claim is that some people make such terrible decisions, or are so incapable that they manage much up even their sound defense.

So by your reasoning, ten guilty men shouldn't even be arrested or go to trial not because not because we want to avoid the one innocent man going to prison, but because the one guilty man showed up high at his court hearing for drug charges and was "disenfranchised" by his own self incrimination.

My thoughts exactly. Well put.

Quote:

He was read his rights. He understood the charges. He had a lawyer. He just couldn't stop showing up high. It's the fault of everyone else though.

They have free voter ID. They have absentee ballots. They have provisional ballots. It is the fault of everyone else though when they can't manage to punch a pin through a piece of paper or even read a ballot.

Let's go further. We should also allow people to be bussed to the polls, funded by Democratic funds. We should also hand out coffee and cigarettes and who knows what else. Why? 'Cause every vote counts! Democracy! Also, those people vote for the perpetual welfare state, which Democrats just happen to favor.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.